Keir Starmer’s hardline stance on Gaza is asking for trouble

The rebellion over the call for an Israeli ceasefire is no threat to the leader, but his handling of it could be, writes John Rentoul

To some outsiders, it seems that Labour is tearing itself apart over semantics (PA)

Shabana Mahmood, the shadow justice secretary, is “the most interesting person in the shadow cabinet”, I was told by a Westminster journalist whose opinion I respect. The only Muslim member, she has been significant in holding the party together as it is convulsed by an emotional spasm over Gaza.

She wasn’t able to prevent eight shadow ministers from resigning on Wednesday, when they were among the 56 Labour MPs who voted for the Scottish National Party amendment to the humble address thanking the King for his speech. The amendment ​​called on the government to “join with the international community in urgently pressing all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire”.

But it would have been worse for Keir Starmer if Mahmood hadn’t worked to minimise the damage to party unity – or if she had resigned herself.

To some outsiders, it seems that Labour is tearing itself apart over semantics. Starmer has called for “humanitarian pauses”. That doesn’t sound very different from a ceasefire. When the Israel Defence Forces introduced four-hour pauses to allow for the delivery of aid to the Gaza Strip, Starmer and David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, called for longer ones.

But there is an unavoidable disagreement of substance. Starmer argues that calling for a ceasefire means calling for Israel to stop trying to root out Hamas fighters and weapons – because Hamas has said it will not lay down arms. Thus a ceasefire is incompatible with Israel’s right to defend itself.

And it may seem to other outsiders that Labour is indulging itself in the fantasy that what its MPs say might have some effect on the Israeli government – because it certainly has no effect on Hamas. But it matters to many Labour MPs that they be allowed to express their strongly held views, and it matters to many of their constituents in turn that their strongly held views be expressed by their MPs in parliament.

Ever since the Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians on 7 October, MPs have been comparing notes about the number of emails received from constituents, mostly from Muslims but many not.

It is not just because Mahmood is a Muslim that she has been able to play her role as mediator between Starmer and a large section of the party. She is also popular with her fellow MPs. This is something that is difficult to gauge since the end of shadow cabinet elections more than a decade ago (the last one was in 2010: Yvette Cooper came top). But Mahmood was elected by Labour MPs in 2016 to represent them on the party’s national executive, which was a good test not only of her popularity but of her understanding of the party machinery.

Not that Starmer’s leadership is close to being threatened. It would take more than the resignation of eight junior frontbenchers to undermine him – after all, Jeremy Corbyn was unmoved when 40 shadow ministers, including most of his shadow cabinet, resigned after the EU referendum.

Some of Starmer’s critics suggest that the extent of the Labour rebellion means it would be hard for the present leader to run a government with a small or no majority. It is true that the rebellion went twice as wide as the 32-strong Socialist Campaign Group, taking in mainstream MPs including Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy. But it remains hard to see many issues on which the “ceasefire” tendency would make common cause with a Tory opposition led by Kemi Badenoch or James Cleverly, which is the only way a Starmer government would actually lose votes in the Commons.

And it is hard to suggest that Starmer’s stance on Gaza is costing the party votes when Labour’s average lead in the opinion polls has widened from 17 to 22 percentage points since the Hamas atrocities. There may be two or three seats that Labour could lose to George Galloway, Lutfur Rahman or the like, but this does not look like an issue that might divert Starmer’s stately progress towards No 10.

If the revolt has any lasting significance, it lies in Starmer’s response to it. The key is contained in the final paragraph of the Labour leader’s statement after Wednesday night’s vote. After setting out why he thought that backing a call for a ceasefire was wrong, he said: “I regret that some colleagues felt unable to support the position tonight. But I wanted to be clear about where I stood, and where I will stand. Leadership is about doing the right thing. That is the least the public deserves. And the least that leadership demands.”

I am told that this bluntness is reflected in private. MPs who have been in to see Starmer to say that they are hurting, personally or politically, over his refusal to call for a ceasefire are met with a repeat of his argument against it. He explains that he is sympathetic to the plight of innocent Palestinians and that he is calling on Israel to observe international law, but some of them say that they feel his basic message to them is: “Tough.”

His ruthlessness in sticking to what he insists would have to be the line pursued by a Labour government is something that Mahmood and Sue Gray, Starmer’s new chief of staff, are trying to negotiate with persuadable MPs. Another leader might have called for a ceasefire for the sake of party management, thinking that it is “only words”. Tony Blair might have done a better job of empathising with the difficulties of his MPs while not actually conceding an inch.

But Starmer is storing up trouble with his brusque handling of his troops’ heartfelt worries – trouble that neither Mahmood nor Gray can entirely manage away.